Copyright © Jim Foley || Email me
In case you're wondering, no, I don't continue this debate with any real expectation that Karl will ever honestly address the evidence. The only reason I bother was perfectly summed up by Steve Henderson in a post on talk.origins:
As everybody on t.o knows, Karl doesn't read well, doesn't do any research beyond finding chunks of material by other creationists to regurgipost, and doesn't understand much of anything about science. Answering his posts would be a waste of time if it weren't that he is such a wonderful example of the basic intellectual worthlessness of creationism.
Article 90879 of talk.origins: From: jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com (Jim Foley) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Evolutionary beginning is a big LIE! here's why, Date: 9 Apr 1996 17:36:09 GMT Lines: 28 Message-ID: <4ke769$s9c@jupiter.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-0404961810560001@abe-ppp323.fast.net>, ksjj <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >typical evolutionist response, read the FAQs. You guys seem to think your >FAQs are HOLY. Can't you write for yourselves???? (Karl steps in the doggie-doo, yet again) Karl, we DID write them ourselves. Where did you think they came from? >Looks lie the evolutionist can't think for themselves. Never give any >proof. sorry fellows. Perfect proof is unattainable, but we give plenty of evidence. In fact, I challenge you to look at the considerable evidence in my hominids FAQ. Then get back to us, and tell us why some of the fossils in it aren't transitional. In particular, I'd like you to tell us which of ER 1470, OH 12, OH 9, OH 7, Java Man, Peking Man, Sangiran 17, ER 1805, ER 3733 are apes and which are humans. (Use the web version; it has pictures to help you decide) You're not *afraid* to look at the evidence, are you? (Why then do I get the funny feeling that Karl will not respond to the above request?) -- Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Article 186677 of talk.origins: From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: PROOF Date: 9 Dec 1996 19:57:28 GMT Lines: 39 Message-ID: <58hqv8$di0@herald.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-0812961433230001@ppp-abe-349.fast.net>, ksjj <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >Over the year that I've been posting here on Talk.Origins I have never >been presented any substantial proof by an evolutionist. Typically most >evolutionist want you to speak up first so they can argue you in the hopes >that you will forget to ask them for their proof. >When an evolutionist usually defends themselves they always cop out and >say go read a FAQ. Karl, how can you possibly evaluate the evidence unless you're willing to read *something*? Should we phone you up and read it to you as a bedtime story? There are lots of books out there, if you care to look for them. I've tried to present evidence to you a few times, and you always ignore it (I notice, though, that you usually find the time to reply to people who insult you). HERE IT IS AGAIN. What are these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg You can find descriptions of them under the specimens file in fossil hominids faq. Telling you to read the faqs is not a copout; it's the easiest way to get the information, even easier than going to the library. If you're not willing to read, how do you expect us to present evidence to you??? -- Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Return-Path:Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 12:18:13 MST To: ksjj@fast.net In-Reply-To: <32AF5D59.4AEB@fast.net> (message from Crawford on Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:18:17 -0400) Subject: Re: PROOF From: Jim.Foley@symbios.com Reply-To: Jim.Foley@symbios.com >>>>> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:18:17 -0400, Crawford <ksjj@fast.net> said: >> You know Jim. I once posted a creation site as an answer to a >> question and got read the riot act by you fools. Probably because it was a pack of lies that had already been refuted multiple times and/or because it didn't actually answer the question. >> I'm confused??? Why do you guys do it all of the time? In this case, I did it because the web pages have pictures that can't be posted on news. If you want to answer any of my questions with a reference to a web page, do so. You haven't answered any of them yet, by any method. -- Jim Foley Jim.Foley@symbios.com I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder Article 227149 of talk.origins: From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Transitional Fossils *M.I.A.* Date: 20 Mar 1997 20:24:32 GMT Lines: 40 Message-ID: <5gs6e0$ict@herald.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-1803971936040001@ppp-abe-410.fast.net>, ksjj <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >Would you be able to provide us with pictures of these transitional >fossils, and strata and country where they are found? After all if the >prediction works so well the evidence should be overwhelming. Certainly. What are these, humans or apes? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg For your comparison, here is a drawing of a modern human skull: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sapiens.gif and there are some pictures of modern ape skulls here: http://skullduggery.com/skulls.htm You can find out more about those fossils by looking at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html, but you might find it an interesting exercise to look at the pictures and try to classify the skulls without reading about them first. (Incidentally, I did ask Karl once before to look at these fossils, and (as I expected) there was no response) -- Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Article 231062 of talk.origins: From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Hey KARL! Where's your response? Date: 31 Mar 1997 20:26:20 GMT Lines: 80 Message-ID: <5hp6lc$512@herald.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-2903972150530001@max1-32.phl.fast.net>, ksjj <ksjj@fast.net.nospam> wrote: >> In article <5hgrc5$jcn@herald.ks.symbios.com>, >> jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote: > Karl, since you asked for some examples of transitional fossils, > why don't you address these? > >> web addresses snipped. >> Jim those picture prove absolutly nothing. Excuse me, but if pictures prove nothing, *WHAT WAS THE POINT OF ASKING FOR THEM*??? In article <ksjj-1803971936040001@ppp-abe-410.fast.net>, ksjj <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >Would you be able to provide us with pictures of these transitional >fossils, and strata and country where they are found? After all if the >prediction works so well the evidence should be overwhelming. It is. Of course, even overwhelming evidence will fail in the face of people who close their eyes and minds and say "It doesn't prove anything!". It seems fairly obvious that Karl is such a person. I think there is absolutely nothing that Karl would accept as a transitional fossil, so it's not surprising that he doesn't find any. If Karl objects to this characterization, he can easily disprove it by by giving us an example of what would be a valid ape-human transitional fossil, or the requirements such a fossil would have to meet to be acceptable. If the photos aren't enough, you *could* read the brief descriptions of them elsewhere in the hominids faq. And if that isn't enough, you could follow the references to find out even more. But I'm sure neither of those things will happen. Too afraid of disturbing the deep, tranquil pond of your blissful ignorance, aren't you? >> As presented on my site, simularities mean zilch. There are many many >> features of many many animals that appear similar. Apes and humans have similarities too, but we can tell them apart. If the photos are of apes and humans, it shouldn't be too hard to tell them apart either. If you don't know enough anatomy to do so, consult your copy of Gish. He has been studying these things for 25 years, so you can surely rely on his expertise and ability to perform such a simple exercise in comparative anatomy. >> What does this mean???? It means that your creator, Jesus Christ, used a >> similar design in his creation. An anology would be a Picasso >> painting. Although he painted on many subjects, his style was present in >> each. But do the similarities in Picasso's paintings form a hierarchical tree? No, and the reason is because a designer would have no obvious reason to design like that. I point out that Karl has once again refused to answer the question: Certainly. What are these, humans or apes? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg All of these are found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html, along with further information. -- Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Article 279670 of talk.origins: From: jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: 'karls nonsense, karl the secret evolutionist Date: 26 Nov 1997 18:40:35 -0000 Lines: 37 Approved: robomod@ediacara.org Message-ID: <65i8iu$bqa@herald.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-2111971818180001@max6-47.phl.fast.net>, Mr. C <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >THEN SHOW ME THE FOSSILS....am I asking to much from you evo-babblers? I've tried about three times so far, but Karl ignores them. What are these? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg Apes? Humans? Other? Feel free to consult the creationist literature of your choice. Brief details on all of them at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html or go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html to see thumbnails of them all together. -- Jim Foley jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Article 279756 of talk.origins: From: ksjj@fast.net (Mr. C) Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: 'karls nonsense, karl the secret evolutionist Date: 27 Nov 1997 09:57:37 -0000 Organization: I read the end of the bible...we win! Lines: 104 Approved: robomod@ediacara.org Message-ID: <ksjj-2711970859070001@max6-27.phl.fast.net> In article <65i8iu$bqa@herald.ks.symbios.com>, jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote: > In article <ksjj-2111971818180001@max6-47.phl.fast.net>, > Mr. C <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: > > >THEN SHOW ME THE FOSSILS....am I asking to much from you evo-babblers? > > I've tried about three times so far, but Karl ignores them. The evidence for human evolution is very fragmatic and sketchy at best. One can easily see that an awfull lot speculative assumption and plaster of paris is required to put the fragments together....or should I say attach the few fragments to the pre-conceived plaster of paris. Below is direct quotes from the Holy FAQ's of Talk Origins. ...as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of a single bone or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. +++quoted for the Holy FAQ's of Talk Origins.+++ The find consist of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and partial arm bone from 2 individuals. +++So, lets build a human linage from a partial jaw (of a child), partial cranium base, partial arm and some teeth....I'm sold+++ It consisted of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal fragments. +++The convincing evidence of the evolution of man continues with a presentation of more fragments.+++ This is a lower left humerus... This is a lower jaw with all its teeth... This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.0 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism. +++all discovered from 1965 to 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. Three peices and PRESTO!!! an other piece of the linage.+++ This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult..... +++did somebody say APPARENTLY?+++ The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3).... +++Matured faster? Evolutionist must be great scientist. They can tell this from a skulls , jaw bones and a face....lets not forget the speculative assumptions and the need for grant money +++ It is a very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be female, but there have been recent claims that it could be male. +++The evolutionist can't seem to make up their mind on this one. Someone's right and someones wrong. It really makes you wonder about all of the other biased based speculative assumptions produced as evidence by the evolutionist.+++ > What are these? > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg > > Apes? Humans? Other? Feel free to consult the creationist literature of > your choice. > > > Brief details on all of them at > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html > > or go to > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html > > to see thumbnails of them all together. > > -- > Jim Foley jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com > Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: > Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids > University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) -- +++++++++++++ see ya, karl +++++++++++++ Where's the transitionals? After all you had 600 million years to make them and 150 years to find them. Article 280627 of talk.origins: From: jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: 'karls nonsense, karl the secret evolutionist Date: 1 Dec 1997 16:51:22 -0000 Lines: 122 Approved: robomod@ediacara.org Message-ID: <65v83p$8s8@herald.ks.symbios.com> Originator: jimf@vangelis [mailed and posted] In article <ksjj-2711970859070001@max6-27.phl.fast.net>, Mr. C <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >In article <65i8iu$bqa@herald.ks.symbios.com>, >jimf@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote: >> In article <ksjj-2111971818180001@max6-47.phl.fast.net>, >> Mr. C <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >> >> >THEN SHOW ME THE FOSSILS....am I asking to much from you evo-babblers? >> >> I've tried about three times so far, but Karl ignores them. >The evidence for human evolution is very fragmatic and sketchy at best. >One can easily see that an awfull lot speculative assumption and plaster >of paris is required to put the fragments together....or should I say >attach the few fragments to the pre-conceived plaster of paris. But, most of the fossils I mentioned below *don't* have filling added (OH 24 is an exception). They are real fossils that are complete enough that they should be easily analyzable (at least for the purpose of differentiating humans and apes) . So what does Karl do?? He totally *ignores* them, goes hunting through the FAQs for the most incomplete fossils he can find, and takes sneering potshots at them. Is this the behaviour of someone interested in _discussing_ the evidence, or in _avoiding_ it? >Below is direct quotes from the Holy FAQ's of Talk Origins. You don't have to tell me. I wrote it. >...as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly >fragmentary, often consisting of a single bone or isolated teeth. Complete >skulls and skeletons are rare. >+++quoted for the Holy FAQ's of Talk Origins.+++ >The find consist of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, >but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, >and partial arm bone from 2 individuals. >+++So, lets build a human linage from a partial jaw (of a child), partial >cranium base, partial arm and some teeth....I'm sold+++ >It consisted of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal >fragments. >+++The convincing evidence of the evolution of man continues with a >presentation of more fragments.+++ >This is a lower left humerus... >This is a lower jaw with all its teeth... >This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about >4.0 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid >bipedalism. >+++all discovered from 1965 to 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. Three peices and >PRESTO!!! an other piece of the linage.+++ >This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete knee >joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs >to an adult..... >+++did somebody say APPARENTLY?+++ Sure. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the anatomy of knee growth to show us why that conclusion is wrong. >>The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years >>old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than >>humans, and that the Taung child was about 3).... >+++Matured faster? Evolutionist must be great scientist. They can tell >this from a skulls , jaw bones and a face....lets not forget the >speculative assumptions and the need for grant money +++ Gratuitous slander. Do you have the foggiest idea why they might have decided the Taung child might be about 3? You could, if you wanted to learn something about it, read "Origins Reconsidered", p.155, and give an *informed* critique of the reasoning for that 3yr age. And what has grant money got to do with it? That result would not have attracted grant money or been fabricated to bolster human evolution (the 3 yr age is an apelike characteristic), it was found because scientists were doing their job. >It is a very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been >thought to be female, but there have been recent claims that it could be >male. >+++The evolutionist can't seem to make up their mind on this one. >Someone's right and someones wrong. It really makes you wonder about all >of the other biased based speculative assumptions produced as evidence by >the evolutionist.+++ So? You can't advance unless you're willing to admit you were wrong and change your mind occasionally. It's called "doing science". Not a single one of the above criticisms has any content worth responding to. Karl has not disputed any facts, shown any evidence of bias, pointed out any errors. All he's done is sneer. Since Karl has totally evaded my original questions, they're as good as ever, so I might as well reuse them: >> What are these? >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg >> >> Apes? Humans? Other? Feel free to consult the creationist literature of >> your choice. -- Jim Foley jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii) Article 308469 of talk.origins: From: jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Still waiting... Date: 10 Mar 1998 17:00:48 -0500 Message-ID: <6e4d6r$3j7@herald.ks.symbios.com> In article <ksjj-0603982132020001@max8-41.phl.fast.net>, ..karl <ksjj@fast.net> wrote: >Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one >species into another species inwhich the new species is a member of a >different taxonomic rank of Family. > >Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan) > >Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the >evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common >ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of >derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits. I'm still waiting too. I have tried many times to present some evidence to Karl, and he has ignored it (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ksjj.html). One could almost form the impression that he is not interested in honestly evaluating any evidence. But, in case he is: What are these? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg Apes? Humans? Other? Feel free to consult the creationist literature of your choice. Brief details on all of them at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html or go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html to see thumbnails of them all together. -- Jim Foley jim.foley@NOSPAM_symbios.com Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest: Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.
Home Page |
Species |
Fossils |
Creationism |
Reading |
References
Illustrations |
What's New |
Feedback |
Search |
Links |
Fiction
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ksjj.html, 07/20/98
Copyright © Jim Foley
|| Email me